The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of framing issues meticulously and addressing material propositions of fact or law to ensure the right decision of the case.

Janak Raj Kotwal, J.

1. This Revision Petition is directed against order dated 02.01.2015 whereby the District Judge, Samba has rejected petitioner-defendant No. 1's application for framing of an additional issue in a suit for partition filed by respondent (plaintiff). Heard Mr. Basit Manzoor Keng, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.S. Salathia, learned Senior Advocate, for the respondent.

2. Petitioner (defendant No. 1) and defendant Nos. 2 & 3 are the three sons of one Kheru Ram. Respondent (plaintiff) is a son of the petitioner. The suit land measuring 51 kanals 3 marlas comprised in various Khasra Numbers was allotted to Kheru Ram being a displaced person. After enactment of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, the suit land was mutated in terms of Section 3A thereof in favour of Kheru Ram. After the death of Kheru Ram, mutation of inheritance qua the suit land has been attested in favour of his three sons, that is, the defendants and the land is now in their cultivating possession. To this extent case is admitted as per the pleadings of the parties.

3. Respondent (plaintiff) has filed suit for partition of the aforementioned land and a house constructed in it. On reading of the plaint it is evident that respondent claims his share in that portion of the aforementioned property which after the death of Kheru Ram has fallen to the share of his father, Sudesh Kumar (defendant No. 1). Respondent-plaintiffs case in a nut-shell is that he and the defendants are the legal heirs of deceased Kheru Ram and being a grandson of Kheru Ram, he is a co-owner/co-sharer in the suit property.

4. Petitioner (defendant No. 1) in his written statement has opposed the suit inter alia but mainly on the ground that respondent (plaintiff) is not entitled to any share in the aforementioned property during petitioner's life time and further that respondent is not a co-sharer with him in the said property. In regard to the house, petitioner has contended that the same has been constructed by him and respondent cannot claim any share in it.

5. The two issues framed by the learned trial court in the suit read:

"1) Whether the suit property is joint and undivided between the parties? OPP

2) Relief? OP on Parties."

6. Another issue in regard to jurisdiction of the trial court was framed as additional issue 1(a) which, however, has been decided in favour of the respondent.

7. Petitioner (defendant No. 1) filed an application before the trial court under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC for faming of an additional issue relating to maintainability of the suit under law and the issue to be taken as a preliminary issue. In moving this application, petitioner pointed out that on the basis of the pleadings of the parties it is clear that question of maintainability of the suit should have been framed. In support of his application, petitioner referred to Order 14 Rule 3 CPC.

8. Respondent (plaintiff) as per the impugned order opposed this application contending that the same was misconceived and has been filed with the intention to thwart the course of justice. Respondent seems to have contended that 'it has not been spelled out in the written statement as to who are the necessary parties in absence of which the suit is not maintainable.' Learned trial court rejected the application by the impugned order taking the view that in the preliminary objections taken in the written statement it has been pleaded by the petitioner (defendant No. 1) that 'suit is not maintainable on account of non-joinder of necessary parties' but the objection raised by the petitioner is quite evasive 'as it has not been spelled out in the written statement as to who are necessary parties' to the suit in whose absence the Court cannot pass an effective decree at all.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued briefly that suit for partition is not maintainable because the respondent neither is a co-sharer in the allotted land nor can he claim partition in the life time of h